mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Breeding Machine Translations: Evolutionary approach to survive and thrive in the world of automated evaluation

arXiv 2305.19330 ↗First posted 30 May 2023cs.CLcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We propose a genetic algorithm (GA) based method for modifying n-best lists produced by a machine translation (MT) system. Our method offers an innovative approach to improving MT quality and identifying weaknesses in evaluation metrics. Using common GA operations (mutation and crossover) on a list of hypotheses in combination with a fitness function (an arbitrary MT metric), we obtain novel and diverse outputs with high metric scores. With a combination of multiple MT metrics as the fitness function, the proposed method leads to an increase in translation quality as measured by other held-out automatic metrics. With a single metric (including popular ones such as COMET) as the fitness function, we find blind spots and flaws in the metric. This allows for an automated search for adversarial examples in an arbitrary metric, without prior assumptions on the form of such example. As a demonstration of the method, we create datasets of adversarial examples and use them to show that reference-free COMET is substantially less robust than the reference-based version.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 67 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 May 2023.

Builds on

25 of 67 references.

References · 25

  1. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
  2. 2018SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for Neural Text Processingcited by 1,989
  3. 2018A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scorescited by 1,799
  4. 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,203
  5. 2020COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluationcited by 1,033
  6. 2021BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generationcited by 722
  7. 2017Six Challenges for Neural Machine Translationcited by 335
  8. 2018Marian: Fast Neural Machine Translation in C++cited by 203
  9. 2021To Ship or Not to Ship: An Extensive Evaluation of Automatic Metrics for Machine Translationcited by 163
  10. 2020Tangled up in BLEU: Reevaluating the Evaluation of Automatic Machine Translation Evaluation Metricscited by 158
  11. 2020If beam search is the answer, what was the question?cited by 116
  12. 2020Automatic Machine Translation Evaluation in Many Languages via Zero-Shot Paraphrasingcited by 115
13 more
  1. 2019On NMT Search Errors and Model Errors: Cat Got Your Tongue?cited by 114
  2. 2020BLEU might be Guilty but References are not Innocentcited by 110
  3. 2021Understanding the Properties of Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding in Neural Machine Translationcited by 56
  4. 2019The Effect of Translationese in Machine Translation Test Setscited by 49
  5. 2022Identifying Weaknesses in Machine Translation Metrics Through Minimum Bayes Risk Decoding: A Case Study for COMETcited by 41
  6. 2019Translationese in Machine Translation Evaluationcited by 38
  7. 2022UniTE: Unified Translation Evaluationcited by 28
  8. 2020Announcing CzEng 2.0 Parallel Corpus with over 2 Gigawordscited by 17
  9. 2022Extrinsic Evaluation of Machine Translation Metricscited by 14
  10. 2022RoBLEURT Submission for the WMT2021 Metrics Taskcited by 9
  11. 2021Pushing the Right Buttons: Adversarial Evaluation of Quality Estimationcited by 4
  12. 2020A Study of Genetic Algorithms for Hyperparameter Optimization of Neural Networks in Machine Translationcited by 2
  13. 2022CUNI Submission in WMT22 General Taskcited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 5.

5 papers.